THE MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION THROUGH PRESIDENT NAWAJ KHAN v. TOWN VENDING COMMITTEE - MCGM THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON
Validation of Town Vending Committee Elections; Distinction Between Prima Facie Eligibility to Hawk and Vested Right to Vote in Electoral Rolls.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6986-DB
Decision Date: 23-03-2026
List of Laws
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; The Maharashtra Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016; National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009; Constitution of India, Article 226
- Facts: The Petitioners, various hawker unions and street vendors, challenged the validity of the elections held on 29th August 2024 for electing representatives to the Town Vending Committee (TVC) in Mumbai. The primary grievance was that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) conducted the elections using a "truncated" voter list of approximately 32,415 vendors, despite a 2014 survey identifying 99,435 potentially eligible hawkers. The Petitioners contended that the exclusion of nearly 67,000 vendors, along with those issued Letters of Recommendation under the PM SVANidhi scheme, violated the Street Vendors Act and the 2016 Rules. They further alleged non-compliance with Rule 15, which prescribes specific timelines for publishing preliminary lists and inviting objections.
- Procedural Posture: Multiple Writ Petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the 2024 elections and the electoral list. Earlier, the Supreme Court had permitted the elections to proceed but directed that the results should not be declared without its leave. The High Court heard the matters to decide the final validity of the electoral process.
- Issue: 1. Whether the BMC was justified in scrutinizing the 2014 survey list and excluding vendors who failed to provide requisite documentation, or did the 99,435 vendors have a vested right to be enrolled as voters? 2. Whether the election process was vitiated by non-compliance with the procedural timelines and publication requirements of Rule 15 of the 2016 Rules?
- Holding: The Court upheld the validity of the elections and the voters' list. It held that being identified as "eligible to hawk" in a survey does not ipso facto confer a right to vote without fulfilling the scrutiny and documentation requirements of the 2009 National Policy and the 2016 Rules.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 99,435 vendors were only "prima facie" eligible and subject to individual scrutiny. The BMC was duty-bound to verify applications; thus, rejections based on incomplete documentation were justified. Regarding Rule 15, the Court found that the delay between list publication (June 2023) and the election (August 2024) actually benefited the Petitioners by providing ample time for objections, which they failed to raise diligently. The Court emphasized that the Street Vendors Act has remained unimplemented for twelve years due to constant litigation, causing grave hardship to citizens through street congestion. To set aside the elections now would cause an "administrative vacuum" for several more years. The Court prioritized the operationalization of the TVC so that it could subsequently perform its statutory functions, including conducting fresh surveys.
🔒 For Members Only